I guarantee we would have had full coverage by now had Comcast now filed the involuntary stay, and then backed out of buying the network in order to try to get it for super-cheap. But apparently now things are moving "too fast" for Comcast... ugh.
Barron said tonight that if the potential buyer didn't get that deal done by Thursday they could take their offer off of the table. Here's Barron's interview on 610 tonight: http://houston.cbslocal.com/2014/07/29/could-comcast-be-out-of-the-mix/
Or if Crane would have agreed to the DirectTV deal from day 1. Edit: Yes, it can be argued that it was a bad deal, but it wasn't for the fans who would have gotten the games.
I'm sorry, but that's silly argument on its face. It ignores the economic reality of CSN. Might as well say "or if Comcast agreed to eat the losses and give it away to everyone."
It would have been a bad deal for everybody when it went belly up in a year or two and nobody would get the games. Judge Isgur is a very practical guy. He wouldn't have called it a rotten business deal if it would have been even a break even proposition.
Interesting question: IF, as others have surmised, Comcast filed the involuntary petition to get a stay...and then try to buy the network on the cheap after reorganization fails...couldn't it be said that Comcast has been working against the best interests of the partnership since filing the petition?
They didn't back out of offering to buy the Network until months after the involuntary stay. So no. Judge Isgur didn't directly accuse them of not acting in the best interests of the Network either. Did Comcast change course along the way, it appears so on the surface. Bottom line the teams would not have lost money on the TV deal when considering both streams of income. It appears the Network overpaid the teams based on the market value of their media rights at the time the Network was launched.
Too bad that's based on the illogical notion that any provider would have just let the Astros walk at that point...
Yes, if I have one complaint about these proceedings, it's that they are moving TOO QUICKLY...... LOL.
The teams would not have lost money, but would have made substantially less than what their market value was considered. They didn't overpay for the team's media rights based on market value at the time. They had a bigger deal with Fox that they walked away from. Fox was offering $1.2B for 10 years, while the deal with CSNH was $1B for 10 years. That was the going rate. All parties greatly overvalued the network as it turns out and joined a bad partnership. The model of teams owning a network with TV providers has proven to be problematic.
The image I have in my head is a bunch of kids playing some made up game, one of them does something that will clearly win the game and the others don't like it, so they scream out "No fair! Do over!"
If the contract was violated, as the Astros were not receiving payments, they were well within their right to do so. In the end, 9 months later, we still have the Astros/Rockets trying to do something that Comcast is not in agreement with (as it was when they were trying to leave the network).
What is the relevance of this? As you have repeated stated, CSN-H is an independent entity from the Astros and it's management needs to look out for the interests of that company. You can't just add someone else's revenues to it to say that something is a good deal. By accepting the deal and locking in long-term losses for the network, you're now saying the opposite of what you were before in terms of fiduciary responsibilties. Whatever makes the Astros the bad guy, I guess.
And Comcast and the Rockets were well within their rights to respond they way they did. Again no provider would just let them walk.
In the sake of attempting to get the teams on TV by now... their "response" has severely prolonged the entire process. The teams would have likely both had agreements by now (and hell, could have had the Rockets on last season). Instead, we are stuck in a quagmire that still has no real resolution in sight, despite the latest "optimistic" news. By your above statement, why would comcast just let them take the channel that is partly their's and go and sell it to somebody else? This will continue to be tied up in litigation thanks to the dumb involuntary bankruptcy stay that prevented the teams from leaving the network.
Ref , I know you know how these things work. All parties involved consult with their own legal team before they make a move in this chess game to talk about what countermoves of their opposition may be. Comcast and the Astros were both aware that when Crane balked at the DTV deal that this chain if events was a possibility. I highly doubt that Giles Kibbe told Crane that "sure they will just let you walk". Attorneys make a good living finding loopholes and creative cover your ass moves.
Not gonna waste my time responding to you keep throwing out the same old card. I could easily make similar comments toward you but that's not productive.
How can you know that other providers would have been lucky enough (or have the foresight) to ensure that they had the network spread debt to 4 related companies so that they could file for involuntary bankruptcy in bad faith, but delay the proceedings enough that enough other companies would incur debts and then join and cure the filiing in good faith?
